I think that a single set of pages using principles of universal design is
superior to separate navigation channels for graphics versus text pages of a
site. I appreciate that a site manager cares enough to attend to the needs
of text users, but worry that it also sends the message that one has to
practically double one's work in maintaing a web site by developing an
alternate text channel. With the accessibility advancements being adopted
by user agents of the Internet, I think we are generally able to navigate a
site that implements W3C universal design (including text descriptions of
graphics where needed). I also find that alternate text channels tend to be
kept less up to date than their graphical counterparts, and I'd rather make
sure I was getting the most current content of a site -- so I tend to follow
the graphical -- or at least the default -- navigation path whenever
possible.
Regards,
Jamal
On 1999-04-02 telecom-l@trace.wisc.edu said:
Steve,
I am unsure what is the purpose and the expected results that we
will attain from a letter like this. Sending it on to the ISP
accomplishes what?
I also have some problems in the author's attempt to say that a web
site should also display a text version of the information in order
to be accessible. This is not completely true. If you design a web
site properly with accessibility in mind from the beginning, you
can display a web page that is both astehtically inovative in
presenting the information, but is also accessible.
A third issue is in the deployment and use of older technology
which some portion of the population segment for PWD refuse to give
up. Providing backwards compatability to such things as text only
browsers will not only inhibit the progressive thinking in an
entraprenurial spirit, but will also lead to limitations in
accessiblity. A good example of this is video streaming through
the web. You need to have a windows based graphical browser in
order to receive the video stream. By saying that you will lnot
use this type of browswer because you have difficulty in its
operation and/or the understanding of how the GUI works will limit
the individuals opportunity to receive and process information over
the web. I have a personal stake in this. As I spoke to you out at
CSUN, I have started a new businees, called the "Able Channel".
Our mission is to empower people with the opportunity to share
knowledge so that they can make value-added decisions that will
help improve the quality of their lives. Our vision is to be the
central repository on the web to store information about activities,
assistive technologies and general info concerned about and for
individuals with disabilities, however, we will present the
information through the web via an accessible video format, i.e.
audio described and closed captioned videos. Based upon this letter,
I will be forced to put a text based version of the site for
individuals using screen readers. How will the video be displayed
through a text only version? Answer, it won't, therefore, PWD will
ot gain any benefit from this type of deployment. However, I have
taken great care to ensure that the web site and all subsequent
pages are designed in accordance with standards proposed by the WAI
committe. Hopefully, you can see my point, I can't help someone who
refuses to accept any help, but wants to force me into doing
something that really doesn't bring any value to a product or
service.
In any case, I will get off my soap box here and again ask you whom
in our company should be signing this letter and is it being sent
to the right people? What are the expectations of sending this on
to the ISP accross the country. Thanks.
Jeff
Net-Tamer V 1.11 - Registered